Thanks. This is a great addition.

@JonahP1621 I've certainly worked with more than one docketing systems that allowed matters and docket entries to be assigned to multiple attorneys. That way, things would show up on each person's docket. Usually, the docketing system simply designated them as Attorney 1, Attorney 2, etc. and the firm could choose by policy the roles assigned to each of the Attorney n fields. At one big firm where I was a partner, at least one partner insisted that docket reports produced for him only show docket items for those few cases where he was the working attorney. The system we had there was so bad that I found to my horror that
one docketing clerk spent their entire day just producing daily docket reports for each attorney by running a giant docket for everyone, then manually extracting the docket for each attorney into a spreadsheet for just that person. I was able to cut that down to no more than an hour by writing some code to split the giant docket into individual files. It wasn't a great solution but was the best we could do with the limited capability of the system.

@ChristianS9906 Thanks for the "reminder" --Discussions are a current project at the moment; we should be able to address this soon.

@ChristianS9906 Thanks for the suggestions; we've added them to our feature request list for prioritization.

@MarkW5689 said in Fill in the Assignee type for the 3.73(c) statement:

3.73(c)

Hi Mark - this is a good suggestion. We have added this a formal change request by auto-populating the field with "Corporation" upon generation. Currently, we will leave the contact record alone. We hope this helps.

@MarkW5689 said in Madrid Trademark Applications Application Number:

LOST.001.WP1

Hi Mark - This is a good idea. We will add this as change request. We will let you know when this has been added. Currently, we do not have an ETA.

Hi George - thank you for the suggestion. We will pass this on to our engineering group for consideration. We hope this helps.

Hi Christian,

Good ideas - thanks. We've added an engineering item for these suggestions. a) can be done reasonably quickly. b) will take longer.

@BerndN5890

Can we ask how you arrived at that URL via navigating Patent Center?

Thank you Christian for the suggestion. We will pass this on to engineering for consideration. Keep the ideas coming.

@mike_appcoll Thank you for doing Learning Series tutorials on often overlooked features. But please also always consider why often overlooked features are often overlooked. Perhaps some eventual user interface tweaks will result in fewer features being often overlooked.

Thank you for the feedback.

Hi Jason,

Thank you for the suggestion. As a policy we don't automatically change the owner of tasks or automatically close tasks. We feel the potential for error is too great.

Hi there. Thank you for the suggestion. We will certainly look into this.

HI there. Thank you for your suggestion. You should be able to give attorneys access to only the billing module, so they can enter their time and nothing else. Would this not work?

Hi Christian,

Thank you for the suggestions. We will take this under consideration.

Hi there. Currently, we do not have a way to do this. Just so we understand, what might you add to multiple references?

@jonah-soundhound-com I use Patent Center. I haven't used EFS-Web for months. The missing fonts issue I mentioned above relates to Patent Center. I did not try uploading the IDS via EFS-Web. I agree, it does not make sense to spend engineering effort to help with problems in a system that is planned for deprecation. However, Patent Center is not planned for deprecation.